I was attracted to the post by a tweet from a tweep who I am considering to follow (I have to be careful because although I prefer Twitter over Google Reader, Twitter has become “too much of a good thing” for me)!

There are many times where I wished I had more time to read the background of an article. This morning I came across a post based on using Lambda Calculus (Scheme programming) to simulate Quantum computing. Even with a background on physics (quantum mechanics & advanced quantum physics), and many years programming I didn't feel comfortable with the content. Now I have two more PDF papers describing the work that I may never have time to get to.

After writing this post, my thoughts are going towards an imaginary tool that combines RSS and Twitter!

I perfectly understand the convenience of automated Reader-to-Twitter shares, but personally don't opt for it, as I've discussed in an earlier post on “Thanksgiving via Attribution” (linked from this post as well). It's also in that post that I discuss the role of attribution, which imo, becomes more “social” by rewarding the curator, along with the author. But that is a matter of personal goals, and I perfectly appreciate your thoughts on how Google Reader, as is, can be considered “social enough”.

For me, these are 2 very different technologies and I approach them quite differently. I agree that Twitter lets me discover much via what people share. But, Google Reader provides me with a sense of controlled depth. I agree with Andre, not everyone wants the torrent-0f-news approach.

Google Reader is where I ultimately subscribe to things I want to read in more depth. I'm following specific writers and what they post and I can read them right within Google Reader – no need to click, deal with anything but the content and stop me from potentially tangential clicking! I do also follow a few folks' Reader share feeds, those that are human curating things I want/need to know about, but don't have expertise with.

For me, these tools are different and I consume/use them differently. I don't think that a good tool needs to try to be exactly like any other good tool, if they can talk to each other effectively.

Thanks to the various ways my Google Reader shares can be automagically shared to my Twitter account (I use Reader2Twitter, very nice, and there are many other options I can see), people who follow me via Twitter get my shared reads and I don't have to worry about trying to hit many places at once.

Heck, I've got 0 Google Reader followers along with 342 Twitter followers. Unless you consider the fact that my Twitter followers get everything I share with Google Reader (which, I would). In that case, I have 342 followers. Period.

Google Reader, for me, provides an essential tool, in a very user friendly and efficient package. Isn't it social enough that I'm reading someone's thoughts and able to quickly and easily share them if I want?

In the last year, “social” and “real-time” were simply features that you needed to have check marks against, whether they were really useful from a product strategy viewpoint. Case in point: real-time search in Google, which doesn't seem to have hit off well with users. In short, I join you in asking that question.

Regardless if RSS is dead or not, I think we can all agree that it never crossed over to the general public. Google Reader will not have as many users as Twitter and it should accept this fact. What it should do is concentrate on what it's great at: a personal RSS reader. There is still place for an old fashion RSS reader in the world of Twitter (not everybody prefers the river-of-news style of Twitter).

Does it need to be social? I ask: Is “social” the only business plan that makes money?